Millennials throw away 633 meals a year because they don't know how to reheat leftovers
Millennials throw away 633 meals a year because they don't know how to reheat leftovers. Those who took part in the poll said they would rather bin food than re-heat it, admitting good food is going to waste.
Researchers found the amount of food millenials confessed to throwing away adds up to more than 1,700lbs. The poll, conducted by cookware brand Pyrex, found millennials - aged 18 to 34 - waste more than three times as much as people aged above 34 who throw out the equivalent of just 186 plates of a food a year - 225 kilograms or 493 lbs. And the millennial food waste mountain is more than double the average food waste in the UK of 300 plates of food - just over 800 lbs per household.
Almost a quarter of millennials (23%) admitted they do not know how to deal with leftovers. By comparison just six per cent of people aged over 55 said they did not know what to do with leftover food.
A further 18 per cent of millennials said they eat out instead of eating the food they have at home leading to even more waste. Just four per cent of those aged over 55 said the same.
A fifth of millennials (21%) said they create yet more waste because they get bored eating what they already have at home compared to just seven per cent of those aged over 55. One of the other main reasons good food is thrown out is because 38 per cent of people fear they will get sick if they eat it after its 'best by' date.
>>26212 (Before reading the intervening posts)
I've often said to people I have a problem with the British attitude to cooking, because the traditional dishes we prepare are often terrible and end up tasting like boiled veg, meat and stodge. Yet we have produce grown in this country, like anywhere else, that just needs that touch, a bit of care, and some seasoning to enhance what flavours are there. It's the social factor of mealtimes and eating that seems to have gone (I've just looked at I'mASkepticYoutuber™'s mate's shite about feminism and I disagree), there's honestly something fulfilling about serving your own recipe of fish pie, or a way of doing roast veggies and stuffing the chicken meat itself with minced garlic, herbs and bacon. Or it's like going out for a meal with other people - the portion isn't particularly bigger than what you'd cram on your plate yourself, but because you've spent that time asking each other about god knows what, you feel more stuffed than had you been at home. I wonder if that explains the general Mediterranean phenomenon of fatty, rich diets and longevity?
I looked at something yesterday from Action on Sugar, and it seems some steps are being made by ready meal and snack manufacturers to reduce fat, salt and sugar in their goods.
Hopefully you'll find a way to control your health to the point it just feels normal, we're all trying, we've all got each others' backs.
It seems the thing with feminism to me is that it's simply been somewhat co-opted into thinking that as long as there's a woman CEO doing the same despicable shite their male counterparts are doing, then everything is fixed.
Has the liberation from preparing a meal by putting it in the radarange for 5 minutes liberated women from domestic and sexual violence and harassment? Like BLM right now, the issue is and always was about culture, not allowing people from whichever group to each wear the boots, as that addresses precisely sod all with regards to abuses of power at an international to a domestic level.
>>26279 >Like BLM right now, the issue is and always was about culture, not allowing people from whichever group to each wear the boots, as that addresses precisely sod all with regards to abuses of power at an international to a domestic level.
How do you get that from "defund the police"? There's a quote from, I think, MLK doing the rounds about how his opponents will always try to pacify his movement with meaningless symbolic gestures instead of making real change and clearly that applies across the board; whether it's removing voice actors, greenwashing or putting Priti Patel in government. Rarely are these actually what's asked for but they're done as a sort of false concession. Then you come along and criticise the people who have been robbed off as though they were asking for something so pointless to begin with.
Almost as if the one thing that needs to change is the one thing none of them want to confront changing. It's the economy stupid! /smugface
As for defunding the police, i really struggle to understand why people haven't thought more than two minutes into it. I obviously hate the pigs, as a yoof who grew up transporting quantities of drugs around in my car that would have had me banged up. But it has to be acknowledged that reducing police presence, in absence of any other social change mechanism, impacts poor communities disproportionately.
In other words, we can't get rid of the police until we have taken care of poverty. But it is, as usual, my speculation that by the time we've got rid of the poverty we might just find that we never needed to, and we had our priorities confused; almost as if some higher power was deliberately misdirecting us.
Defunding the police is really more apt for america, where officers commonly have million dollar pensions, top of the line guns, armour, and vehicles, and tiny rural town police forces end up with ex-military tanks, and overtime pay that encourages actively seeking an arrest, any arrest, ten minutes before your shift ends so you can make four or five hours double time booking the perp.
In the UK our police aren't quite as well funded, so it makes less sense, though I would argue that, in the case of my local police force at least, they probably don't need eight brand new unmarked BMW X7s and the loss of them wouldn't particularly put impoverished areas at any greater risk.
Even then, I'd say it's not that they're getting too much funding, just that we're letting them spend it on the wrong things. Maybe they don't need flashy cars, but by the same I don't see how stopping them having flashy cars would meaningfully prevent them abusing their power. They'd just be abusing their power while driving an Astra.
What needs to be done is redirecting their funding into more de-escalation and non-violent conflict resolution training. In the case of American coppers especially, even just sending them on something like the SIA badge course our JobCentre sends people on would probably give them better de-escalation skills.
>>26289 The whole system of US policing trains and selects for sociopathic behaviour, sending them on a de-escalation course won't cut it. The idea is to replace them in the 90% of situations they respond to where they'd be better off acting as a counsellor or social worker with an actual counselor or social worker. See this article https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop-bb14d17bc759
You do have to factor in that America is generally a more violent society. Which isn't limited to the fact that they've all got guns. The U.S. also leads much of the developed world in physical non-gun violence. But also, you are not going to get through to a ghetto kid in the Bronx who's just robbed a convenience store by playing social worker as a police officer. You'll be up against somebody who has never known anything besides gangbanging and selling drugs for a living. By that point, you're already dealing with decades of neglect by the social system. Which is no excuse for cops risking the death of a suspect, but as a culture, you do get garbage in - garbage out. If your attitude towards violence as a culture is cavalier, then your police will also have that same kind of attitude.
I'm not saying that there aren't council estate hoodlum yoofs in Britain who've never worked an honest day in their lives and whose criminal records fill several pages, despite all the best efforts of the council and social workers. But I think as a society, we spend more resources on taking care of people before they get to that point. There are plenty of taxpayer-funded juvenile crime prevention programmes, while institutions like that generally tend to struggle in America and desperately depend on donations from the public. In the U.S., the answer to youth crime is therefore very frequently juvenile prison or boot camp. Which will only harden teenagers, but not discourage them from becoming career criminals.
If you fix that problem, then you will also see American culture become a good bit less violent.
>>26374 >If your attitude towards violence as a culture is cavalier, then your police will also have that same kind of attitude.
There's "our cops are violent because all of us are violent" and there's "our cops are trained to be and selected for being extra violent, on top of all of us being violent". If you read the article.
You know how people point at failed communist countries and say "look, socialism bad,no food"?
America is kind of the anti-thesis of that, so many of their problems basically come down to that laissez faire everyone for themselves approach to society with absolutely barebones social spending.
Remember ye olde Virgo Roof Guard advert. Prevention is cheaper than the cure.
> so many of their problems basically come down to that laissez faire everyone for themselves approach to society with absolutely barebones social spending.
It's a pretty simple equation. If you're among the fortunate few who have either inherited enormous wealth or who have amassed it by being shrewd businessmen or -women, or perhaps even by being an A-list actor or top-tier musician, then the sky is the limit. There are few better places to live than the U.S. if you are stinking rich. Everything will be handed to you. But if you are born into poverty and without opportunities, then you are almost fucked for life. And rags to riches stories and the American Dream are nowadays more or less a promise that is never kept, with few exceptions. As George Carlin once said, it's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
It plays into American individualism, where many still believe that it's up to a person themselves how they fare in life and how far they will get. And it often breeds a strange mix of views and attitudes, where people will say things like, why should my taxes be used to afford somebody birth control, or why should higher education be (almost) for free when people just bumble about and spend years half-heartedly studying for a degree which they may or may not complete. Even the notion that a person who is out of work should have a roof over their head that's all paid for by the government is something that clashes not just with the views of self righteous rich people over there, but the working middle class as well.
Socialism tends to perform quite poorly in overall standards of living, as well as in terms of personal wealth, technology, and availability of basic goods and commodities. At least that was usually the outcome in countries where full-on socialism was attempted as an economic system, and failed. But you didn't hear much about mass unemployment and homelessness in the Soviet-era Communist Bloc.
Yeah, if I won the lottery or something I'd probably move to America in a heartbeat. Big house with loads of land to shoot explosive barrels with assault rifles out of my monster truck or whatever the fuck. There's a lot to be said for that freedom to do near enough literally whatever the fuck you want without anyone interfering. But that's the thing- You have to be loaded to enjoy that freedom, and I'm quite sure it's cold fucking comfort to people working at Domino's for $8 an hour.
Despite all the rhetoric, America has lower social mobility, not higher. All the advantages of wealth are exponential, whereas the disadvantages of growing up poor require disproportionate effort to overcome. Meanwhile the people in the middle delude themselves into thinking a 3-bed in the suburbs, a garage full of woodworking tools they once used to make a coffee table, and a Honda Civic means they've "made it".
>Despite all the rhetoric, America has lower social mobility, not higher. All the advantages of wealth are exponential, whereas the disadvantages of growing up poor require disproportionate effort to overcome.
It's really a difference in exponentiality. If you succeed economically in the U.S., that success is often quite spectacular. For all the bad that can be said about social inequality in the U.S., Americans love an underdog from humble beginnings who goes on to make shedloads of money with an invention or a business idea. The problem is that you have a considerable survivor bias with those success stories in America. Where some succeed admirably, many others fail drastically. I would say more so than in the UK. There is much more scope in what is possible in terms of personal economic success, but overall, the likelihood of being one of those lucky ones is not greater than in Europe.
The United States still has many ideas in its cultural DNA from the very beginnings of the country, where loads of people emigrated to the U.S. to seek their fortune, and where you just couldn't rely on a social net to catch your fall. You couldn't just expect the local council to give you a flat in rural Nebraska. Self reliance was key. And then when you add the influence of Calvinism whose New World currents held a strong belief that economic success was a sign you were among God's chosen ones, then it's a mixture where Americans might bemoan the fact that there is so much poverty all around them, an exorbitant amount anyway for one of the world's richest countries, but they will also be little inclined to approve a system of government like in the UK which to them basically bankrolls laziness.
It comes after a Twitter row erupted over use of the punctuation mark.
Writer Rhiannon Cosslett tweeted: “Older people – do you realise that ending a sentence with a full stop comes across as sort of abrupt and unfriendly to younger people in an email/chat? Genuinely curious.”
I remember having this exact same issue with a ex. She seemed to have an issue with me using full stops in messages. She was insecure and neurotic in a lot of ways so at the time I assumed it was just her being bonkers.
>>27106 >>27107 I've had this conversation many times with younger colleagues who suspect some people are short with them. I blame smileys for opening the door to this kind of punctuation anarchy - it's all a plot by Big Eggplant.
Wouldn't complain too hard though, I get quite flustered if someone calls me abruptly.
Not as bonkers as you might think. All communication is heavily context dependant; the way you'd write a formal letter is totally different from the way you'd write a text message.
The news articles present it as sensationalist "Gen Z feels intimidated" but that's nonsense, it's just that certain people are more attuned to particular forms of communication. I would bet that this is really about single sentence messages, as many Twitter and SMS messages are, where emphasising the end with a full stop does seem like a more deliberate choice. Signs and written informational messages, for example, rarely have full stops.
Try for yourself, imagine receiving an SMS:
"Okay, see you Thursday"
and
"Okay, see you Thursday."
Do these messages strike you as different, tonally?
>>27110 > Do these messages strike you as different, tonally?
Not particularly. I'm not bonkers. It sounds like some millennial snowflake eisegesis bullshit.
My point is, in short text messages, full stops are omitted so often that adding one seems like it may be trying to convey something. Otherwise, why go through the additional effort?
Terseness seems like a pretty reasonable interpretation. I doubt anyone finds it "intimidating", exactly, but (mis)reading tone in text happens in just about every form of communication. And it's obviously not exclusive to any generation, I imagine an older person that texts a lot might be prone to the same interpretation.
It's almost as though people who communicate more via text have developed ways to subtly inflect that text with emotive meaning and people who do it less struggle to pick up on it.
Honestly I'm surprised any of you find this strange or unusual given that imageboards are a great example of the exact same thing happening, but for our generation(s). Have you seriously never noticed how much disconnect there is between the way your elders communicate in text compared to how they speak, compared to how digital natives put their thoughts and emotions into text?
Exactly, that's the clickbait-embellishment employed by the article writers, who present things in a deliberately divisive way so as to provoke conversations like this and increase sharing of their embellished-clickbait.
Seeing as these are articles from the Daily Mail, Telegraph and The Sun, maybe that has more to do with the editorial of the papers reporting it than actual Gen Z sentiment.
>>27121 >>27122 I think this is why the person who posted it was banned. He won in the end because people started discussing and frothing at the mouth over it anyway.
>genuinely bonkers
>some millennial snowflake eisegesis bullshit
>all a plot by Big Eggplant
I think it's about consistency. If you punctuate all of your texts and emails then it shouldn't be an issue.
>>27122 >maybe that has more to do with the editorial of the papers reporting it than actual Gen Z sentiment
The Tweet that seemed to spark this all off was by Guardian columnist Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett. The cynic in me expects her to write a column about this or the backlash in the near future.
I loathe the term, but she does fit the description of snowflake very accurately.
>>27123 Isn't that the entire point of the thread?
She didn't say it was intimidating though, did she? She said "sort of abrupt and unfriendly". The difference between her saying that and you deciding that the words of the red-top editors are actually hers is several leaps in logic away. The irony of you and them getting all up in arms about such a minor thing then calling someone else a snowflake is palpable.
Yeah, no, they've got us there, you have to admit. It started as a meme, sure, but it's been about a decade now. If I'm still committed to the joke after that long, can I really say I'm only joking about it?
I thought the point being made was that conspiracy theory has been around since the early 1900s. There are many things you could call David Icke but I don't think "millennial" is one of them.
Look, shut up, yes of course you could call him one but broadly speaking nobody would agree with you.
>>36558>>36559 I'm fairly certain if they polled middle-aged people and boomers their results would be even worse due to the heightened brain power on Facebook.
